Talk:Shakespeare's Birthplace

Authenticity of Claims
To be a balanced article this should show that claims regarding the birthplace are not universally accepted. I would appreciate discussion before anyone reverts. BTW I am not an Oxfordian Hardicanute (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute


 * Saying nothing about the content of the contribution at all (which I haven't fully examined), the claim you're making in your proposal is not discussed at all in the article, and as such should not be summarized in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, it is intended to summarize the views presented in the article in proportion to its weight. If this info belongs anywhere, it would belong in the article body.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That is fair enough, so can I take it that if I expanded on this theme in the body of the article, perhaps creating a section based on the source I could then also refer to it in the lead. I don't want to do this work and have someone come and undo it Hardicanute (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Cannot see a problem of adding to the body of the article and then put a short note summarising it in the lead. Keith D (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't actually looked over the content or sources, so I can't guarantee it is appropriate for the article, or that new content you add to expand the section would be justified either. However, adding it is the only way it's got a chance to be included. The lead should be a summary of the substantial issues raised in the article, not everything, so we'd then have to figure out if this warranted discussion in the lead as well. It might. I don't know. I'd have to see it first, notably with ample sourcing.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The way you are writing it comes across as though you have some particular authority and decides what is written here. I can't see anything on your page to justify that you have any more authority than Keith D. and suggest that you should alter your tone.  All I could see about you was that you reverted an edit on another page without bothering to check any of the references. Hardicanute (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, no editor here has any more authority than any other. This includes administrators. However, I have been around the block a few times, and my advice above is founded in policy. Please keep things civil, and on article improvement, and please indent your posts. Thank you.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 08:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The article states that “Records show that in 1529 John Shakespeare was fined for leaving a pile of muck outside his home in Henley Street, proving that he and his wife Mary did own a house there at the time.” I do not believe this date is correct (although there may be some records that go back that far). I think the correct date for this would be 1552. DeVereGuy (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I propose changing the last sentence of the opening paragraph to: It has been referred to as "a Mecca for all lovers of literature"[4] and yet according to others, it appears that William Shakespeare was neither born in the birthplace nor did he ever live there. [11] With a reference to Edwin Reed's 1907, The truth concerning Stratford-upon-Avon, and Shakespere, page 37. I wanted to discuss it here beforehand, so any objections could be raised and perhaps avoid an unnecessary revert. 24.9.24.228 (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)